Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on August 12 2020
Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.
Speaker 1 00:00:05 The Piscataway Township planning board meeting go, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting is provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Korean news notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the courier news and the star alert measured. Will the clerk please call the road Speaker 0 00:00:29 Mayor Wahler. He said here, Councilwoman Cahill here. Ms. Corcoran. Ms. Saunders, Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa, dear Mr. Foster and Adam Chairman Speaker 1 00:00:57 Here, will everyone please salute the flag, cross your heart and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the United, which is stands one nation under God, indivisible with Liberty and justice for all. Do we have anyone to swear in tonight? Guest me Madam chair. Okay. This is a hearing Carol. Hi. Oh, I just ran a professional exam. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony about to deal with the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. I'm sure. If I can just put on the record that this meeting is being held in conformance with the department of community. If there are guidelines that were promulgated in the beginning of the pandemic, the meeting is being done. Virtually the information for the public to have access to the meeting was promulgated and the appropriate notices were put out. And I believe he is compliant as well as we can with the guidelines put out by DCI. Speaker 0 00:02:34 Can the record show that Mr. Foster has entered the meeting? Thank you. Speaker 1 00:02:42 Okay. Item number six, resolution or adoption of resolution to memorialize the July 8th accident taken on July 8th, 2020, Matt, Madam chairman planning board, secretary Carol Fanta. I like to make a motion to Speaker 2 00:02:59 Memorialize the accident taken at the July eight to 2020 meeting. Speaker 1 00:03:11 Okay. You broke off Speaker 0 00:03:13 Mayor Wahler yeah. Councilwoman Cahill. Yeah. Ms. Corcoran. Yeah. Ms. Saunders. Yeah. Wherever Kenny. Yes. Mr. Foster was here and Madam chair? Speaker 1 00:03:33 Yes. Okay. Item number seven. Okay. Speaker 2 00:03:39 Madam chairman. I like to memorialize the meeting minutes from July 8th, 2020 meeting. Speaker 1 00:03:51 I'll second that robe Belco Speaker 0 00:03:57 Mayor Wahler. Yeah. Councilwoman Cahill. Yeah. Corporate Ms. Saunders. Yes. Berberine county. And that I'm chair, huh? Speaker 1 00:04:13 Yes. I apologize. All right. I've been having some connection issues, so I'm back. Okay. Thank Speaker 0 00:04:19 You. Okay. Speaker 1 00:04:22 Item number eight. Courtesy review. Board of education. Steve, are you going to do that when someone? No, no Speaker 0 00:04:33 Chair. He was on, Speaker 3 00:04:37 This is Beth Kender dying day. She is, are you talking about the Middlesex county Bowtech sign? Yes. Okay. I am Beth heterodyne from Edwards engineering group. We prepared the plan that was submitted showing the location of the message sign with me is Adam Finkel from S S P architects. And what I can do is share my screen with the plan, if that's what you typically do, or would you prefer to just ask questions? How would you like to go over? Speaker 1 00:05:14 D can we all see the screen? I think if you share the screen and just go over generally what's proposed. Yeah. Speaker 3 00:05:23 Okay. I can see. Okay. Okay. Hold on one second. Speaker 1 00:05:32 Okay. Okay. Speaker 3 00:05:38 Okay. What you're looking at is the plan that was submitted, the planning board. It is the Piscataway campus of the Middlesex county, vocational technical schools on Sutton's blame. Are you all familiar with the location of the campus? Okay. So this is the parking lot that is closest to the, to the main entrance of the building. Be board of education is looking to construct a message sign in the location that I just zoomed in on. So it's right by the entrance driveway off Sutton's lane, we have an approximate limit of the right of way based on an old survey and where we're concerned with placing the, when you feed off the existing IRBs so that we make sure that we're outside the pub right away. So a new led sign that it seems to pose with the D sign is up in the right-hand corner of the plan. Speaker 3 00:06:55 I'm zooming it now. So it is eight and eight ERs inches wide, eight feet, two inches tall. And it will have an led on the front. This is the sign is pretty much exactly what has already been constructed at the other two Bowtech campus, Sykes county, the east Brunswick and Woodbridge campuses. So as hold on. Okay. So I have of those two, this is the site at the Woodbridge campus. You can see what it looks like. Typically, I guess it's going to have temperature and some announcements on the side. This is the sign at the east Brunswick campus ruse lane. So essentially we're just coming before the board or a capital project review to let you know what we're doing and, and, and show that it's in complete master plan. Adam Finkel from SSP has some more information on how the science is going to be used. And the timing of that. So, Adam, do you want to speak up? I stop sharing my screen now. Speaker 4 00:08:31 I'm sorry, before you go, this is, just one thing to keep in mind. I was just speaking with the mayor and there are plans to install sidewalks along the Sutton's lane frontage. That was just something to keep obviously curving out there right now, but there will eventually be a five foot sidewalk running along this Speaker 1 00:08:56 Funded though. Just don't want to have any issues with the location of the sign and, you know, with the placement of the sidewalk, I don't think there will, because we do have 18 feet between the curb and be that right. And 20 feet the sign. And you have that county, you're only about two feet off the property line though, right? With the location of that fine three plus or minus. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is this is the sign illuminated on both sides? I believe so. Yes. Is that all right? Is there any other questions by the board? Any comments by the boy? Okay. Hearing no comments or questions. Do we need to take a vote, Speaker 1 00:10:07 Tom? Do you think we need to take a vote courtesy review? It's it's their opportunity to explain, but I thought there was another witness who was going to testify. I thought that would, oh yeah, he is dying. Had indicated. I don't see Adam Finkel near me easily right there. Sorry. I'm here. Oh, there he is. Madam chair. Should you? I don't mean they should. You've sworn the witnesses in. Should the witnesses have been sworn in, even though it was a, a courtesy review courtesy. Well, let's swear, Mr. Finkel, and then we'll go back and I'll swear, Ms. Kendra, Diane. And see if he has any additions or corrections. Sorry about that. No, no. I, me to Mr. Carol, which is where Mr. Carol is muted. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Mr. Finkel, do you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Pinko, would you proceed to give your comments, please? Sure. I'm going to speak about the use of the sign, the school district in conformance with their other campuses. We'll use the site to maintain a school logo, date, time, and temperature. They will also use assigned Speaker 6 00:11:53 This place, school events and accommodations. It will not be used for any advertisement. The led sign will be continuous use over the calendar year. Speaker 1 00:12:11 Okay. Board members. Do you have any other, any questions of Mr. Finkel? I'm hearing no questions and hearing no comments. We'll go back to Ms. Kender dine and Kara, would you swear her in that she has told the truth, the whole truth candor. Diane, could you please raise your right hand? Do you the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay. Is there, does anyone have any questions? This purse swearing in will be we'll cover the testimony that she gave previously in this meeting, the, the board has an opportunity to ask any questions or make any comments based on her testimony, hearing no commentary by anyone else. Is there any other matter under discussion for this item on the agenda? Okay. Well hearing no questions, I guess you may proceed Ms. Kendrick, none for the board of education, Middlesex county voter. Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 7 00:13:24 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:13:28 Okay. Item number nine is, is not going to be heard tonight. Do we have an adjourn date for that one, which is the plane 17 Plainfield avenue, September 9th, no further January. Okay. Item number 10 for discussion, Speaker 7 00:13:52 Matt. And clarify may just briefly address this for the board. I'm not sure if all the board members had an opportunity to review the March 19th, 2020 letter from Robert Williams, who is the owner of the property at 30 Rachel terrorists. But it's not just to summarize. They were before the planning board in 1979. That's why it's got an application number of 79 PB 43. Well, at that point, the planning board granted a minor subdivision. So new deeds were prepared. The board approved the resolution, the appropriate documents were taken were filed. I'm sorry were signed off by the planning board chairman and the secretary. However, it appears that the subdivision deed itself, even though it hadn't been signed by, everyone was never actually filed. So I guess it's part of a title search it. The owner realized I have a deed, but it's never been filed. So he wrote a letter to the board asking if the board would grant them additional 30 days extension of time, I guess, 41 years plus 30 days to allow them to file the deed. Speaker 7 00:15:15 I mean, all the paperwork's in order, it's really a housekeeping item, but he just sends the deed to the board, to the Middlesex county clerk. Now it's going to get kicked back. So he needs a resolution from the planning board, granting him an extension to file it. Now he asked for 30 practically speaking, by the time this comes up at the next meeting to be voted on, my suggestion would be if the board's inclined, give him a 60 day extension, we'll approve the resolution at the next meeting. And he can finalize something that's been 41 years in the making. Yeah, that sounds appropriate. So if that would pleasure, I would suggest perhaps a motion to grant the applicant a 60 day extension to file. And if there's a second and the board votes favorably on it, I'll prepare a resolution for the next meeting. Please comment. Speaker 7 00:16:14 Yes. You're, you're comfortable with this. I am. I've spoken to the applicant's representatives and I understand what happened. So I'm very comfortable with it because like I said, everything was done in the right way, except that just wasn't mailed in no of anything. They're going to pay more filing fees because the fees have gone up by. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So you're saying that you did review the application and in your opinion, you reviewed all the documents they submitted and they did everything right. 41 years ago, someone just never mailed in the deed. So in order to mail in the deed to the clerk, now that they just need a resolution from the board, giving them an extension. Speaker 8 00:16:58 Why is this not on file? Speaker 7 00:17:03 Exactly. So it's on file. So if you did a title search, it would come up. Speaker 8 00:17:07 That's correct. I'll make a motion that we get to him. I, Reverend Kenny I'll make a motion that we grant him 60 days in order to get this on file in time at county clerk's office. Speaker 7 00:17:22 This is Carol. Carol. Okay. Well, cool. Speaker 0 00:17:28 Mayor. Wahler Mayor Wahler Councilwoman Cahill. Yeah. Ms. Corcoran. She said yes. The Saunders. Reverend Kenny, Mr. Espinosa. Yes. Speaker 1 00:17:49 And Madam chair. Yes. Item number 11. Discussion on 1 41 circle drive. Speaker 9 00:18:03 Hello, everyone James talking here. Hi, I'm good. How are you? Okay, well, we swear in the witness. I was just going to say yes. Speaker 2 00:18:15 The scale Saunders. These were the, the testimony about the gear with truth and Speaker 9 00:18:20 Nothing but the truth. I do. Yes. Speaker 1 00:18:23 Yep. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Clarkson. Speaker 9 00:18:27 Okay. So I'm going to share my screen. Speaker 9 00:18:35 All right. Can everyone, ah, yes. All right. Excellent. So this is studies focused before you tonight is an area in need of redevelopment study for block 4, 1 0 2 lot two better known as 1 41 several drive north in Piscataway Township. Piscataway as council asked us for, to study this area for a non condemnation area in of free development. And as I was a routine by the board, I prepared the report before you tonight, and I'll be sharing my findings with you. Okay. All right. So moving on, I did an onsite investigation of the property on March 13th of this year. And as with most area need of redevelopment studies, I look at attempts of records, aerials, a text information, your master plan, your zoning ordinance. And I also take photos, obviously when I'm on site, during my inspection. And I put all this information together to give you my findings. Speaker 9 00:19:38 So I'm just going to jump right in. I'm going to skip to page five and start discussing the current situation or conditions on the ground at the site. So it's one line it's about 5.6 acres in size, located on circle drive north near the intersection with possum town road. So I'm actually going to skip to the end of my report, which has an aerial. So this will be easier for you all to see. So in the white square is the study area and right here is the intersection I was just discussing. So it actually has dual frontage, both on circle drive north, and also possibly town road. If you continue south Southeast on possum road, you will hit interstate two seven at exit eight. So that's what we're looking at here. And as you can see, oh, zoom in a little, but I don't think I really need to, it is bacon forested lands. Speaker 9 00:20:42 I will get into this a little bit later, but there also are some potential wetlands on the property. I cross-reference Piscataway Township building and zoning records, and I can not find any evidence of their NEB of there being any development at any point, really, as far as I can remember, it's always been forest and I believe it's been, I bet for well over 10 years, if not more. So back to jump up to page six of my report is so sorry. Let me know if you can go into fast. Here we go. So as with all studies that I do, I do an environmental analysis of the study area. So you'll see an exhibit before you, and you'll see a couple of different colors on the setter on this exhibit. So the light blue are wetlands. Deep pink is groundwater contamination. And if you can see them, there are two little stars. Speaker 9 00:21:46 That just means it's a known contaminated site. So as you can see, this is all DUP records online. So as you can see, it says that the entire property is wet. When I walked the site, that was not the case. I did find some evidence of standing water and some pink wetlands, demarcation flags. I'll show you some photos later more into the rear of the property, but it was not entirely wet. I probably walked, I don't know, at least halfway before I found any evidence of wetlands. It does seem that at some point I did not see a Brooke Rehobeth, Brooke. I believe he used to flow through here connecting with Ambrose and possum town park. But like I said, I did not see any actual running of water that would indicate a stream. So I had to let it, these two things, including the groundwater contamination, cause I'm going to be circling back to those two items later in my presentation. So moving on surrounding land uses, this is the light industrial districts. If anyone was serving down circle drive noise, it's pretty much like industrial. You have your warehouses, maybe some blight manufacturing. And this big structured here is a large data center. Speaker 9 00:23:09 If you go further south on the other side of puzzle, time rodeo, possum town park, further north on the others, or, sorry, there we go. If you were going to go further north beyond these properties, there would be residences there. And there are some residences on the south side of Boston town park, as I said, it's in your light industrial zoning districts, typical light industrial uses this page. Page seven, kind of just goes through what your zoning ordinance has for that zone. I'm sure you guys are familiar with your own zone of the . So from master plan perspective, I would just like to touch on that your master plan does not specifically call out this property for being in need of redevelopment nor really anywhere near it. But in your master plan, you do have something that says redevelopment activity will become an increasingly important land use issue, especially within the older developed sections of the township. Speaker 9 00:24:17 I would say that this area of circle drive north is and all their area of the township that hasn't seen a ton of development and definitely no development on the study area. So I feel that this master plans assumption is consistent with promoting redevelopment activity at the study area. And it means these master plan, when you skills and policy statement, moving on to the state planning area classification, as you may know, the state plan puts all the Piscataway in the PA one area, which is known as the metropolitan planning area, and actually also lists Piscataway Township as a smart growth area in general. So, but overall the PA one area of the state planning calls for a majority of the development and the redevelopment of the states that occur in those areas. So therefore redevelopment at that site would be consistent with the PA one state planning area classification, excuse me. And I believe we need the smart growth intentions of that plan as well. So now that we've covered kind of study or description environment conditions on the grounds master plan, and I'm going to jump into some photos that are shown in my report, just a quick disclaimer, there is nothing interesting about these photos because it is forest. Speaker 9 00:25:49 So as you can see there is though, is that you didn't see big foot. No, I did not see a big foot, but yeah, as you can see, it's just all a pretty old forest. I can see the trees as the roadside view from circle north drive and these two photos, sorry, say it again. You can see some debris and trash stones. I really think not come across a lot though. That was right on the road side. Then you have another picture of forest in the area. And then here is where I found some evidence of wetlands that I alluded to earlier. So as you can see, it pretty much says cut off a little bit, but it says well in, and then that's the demarcation. When I looked at the DP DP records, I couldn't really find when it was demarcated. So I don't know how old those are. The flags did seem scattered around a little bit. So I would say they've been there for some time, but they were at different areas of the study area. And then this second one you can, if you, I may need to zoom in a little bit, do that. Speaker 9 00:27:04 So you can kind of see this whole vert here and it's drive here. But if you look forward or further back in the photo, you can kind of see some evidence of water being there on the property. And then as I went further back, this is kind of going towards possum tab. You can see another pink flag here and some more evidence of standing water. So I just want to be clear as you know, on a I'm a professional planner. I do not have a license to demarcate wetlands, or really it's to say for sure that they do exist. I'm really going by the evidence in my photos of the state water and the flags. I think it may be important at some point, if we move further in the redevelopment process to properly to Marquis extend other wetlands, as it may obviously have some impact on what can be redeveloped there. So I think I have a couple more photos. Yeah, I think that's the last one. So really overall the conditions zone in these photographs, plus looking over your zoning and building records through that, the study area is unimproved vacant land and it has been so for well over 10 years, and I believe this is substantial. Evidence meets the first site of the seed criteria. Speaker 9 00:28:26 And that is a good segue into applying the statutory criteria. So first to start, why don't I read you the secretes here as a refresher and make sure we're all on the same page. Give me a moment. Here we are. So the same criteria states land that is owned by the, in this county, the county allowed health, a local housing authority, redevelopment agency, or redevelopment entity or unimproved vacant land. Speaker 2 00:28:56 I'm sorry, Madam chair. This is Councilwoman Cahill. I, I do apologize, Mr. Clark in your screen is, is now not where I can see what you're reading. Speaker 9 00:29:08 Okay. Do you want me to zoom in a little bit? Sorry. I'm Ray. Is that better? Okay. All right. Sorry about that. So I that's a tear or unimproved vacant land that has remained. So for a period of 10 years prior to the adoption of the resolution and that by reason of its location, remoteness lack of means of access to Belle sections of the SLT or topography or nature of the soil is not likely to be developed to the instrumentality of private capital. So as I said, I already showed evidence that we need the first leg of unimproved vacant land for 10 years. So now I'm going to move on to the second leg, which is to show that it's not likely to be developed through the instrument of private capital. So at this point, I'm going to go back to this exhibit. Speaker 9 00:30:11 So I'm sorry. So that's the two facts support this second leg that it's not likely to be developed by private capital. The first is if you're a private developer and you're doing due diligence and you find this information, one might assume that it is entirely wetlands and most likely not redevelop bubble or even developable. If you did further due diligence and you actually walk the say, you may find that the wetlands are not as extensive, but they are still present. And I think this fact alone and the nature of the soil is enough center, private capital, because as we all know, if there's a certain amount of wetlands on any property you will kick in and JTP requirements of regs for regarding those wetlands. So that would require hiring professionals, demarcating the wetlands, putting a lot of time and money and effort that would add expenses to developing the property. And it may just not be worth it as the developer. So I think the wet nature of the soil is a deterrent private capital. In addition, as I mentioned before, these pink areas are brown water contamination. This one is the largest one. Speaker 9 00:31:35 It actually is large. Not that it has an active groundwater pumping system active to make sure that the contamination does not spread away from here. These two areas on block 4, 1 0 1, 3 and four, I don't believe I can not find any records of any sort of groundwater pumping, but it did say that Dow chemical did own it at one point. Wasn't great, but these two fasts combined because the water or the water flow is in the south Southwest direction. So if groundwater contamination was to escape, it would be in the direction of the study area. And so I think that potential for groundwater contamination is another deterrent to private capital to develop it on its own without public assistance. As you all know, groundwater contamination and culmination of any type can be quite expensive for developing a site. So the combination of those two items and when nature, the soil and the surrounding ground water contamination are in my professional opinion, deterrence to private capital on top of the fact of the study area, it's unimproved bacon, man, it has been so for over 10 years. So that is the CE credit, Syria. Sorry about that. Let me get back to where it was. So right. In my professional opinion, I conclude that the study or it needs to see criteria and the long-term vacancy and stagnation is detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Speaker 9 00:33:14 The second criteria that I'd applied as the age criteria at the age criteria states designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to law or regulation. So as I mentioned before in the state plan that the state planning office put together Skidaway township is listed as a smart growth area. So on top of that, so really the state sees Piscataway as growth already. I would concur, but also specifically for this site, interstate two, seven as close by, there are lots of existing light industrial development on circle drive, where you can take advantage of water and sewer infrastructure, which means you don't have to, you know, pay a lot of money to get those utilities to that it's already there and can be tapped into, which is a feature of smart growth area, variety of the transportation areas, et cetera. So it's my opinion as well, that it meets the age criteria for being close by to existing infrastructure and meeting the smart growth principles. So in conclusion, I recommend that this township planning board and the council determined that the study area block 4 1, 2 lot two is an area in need of redevelopment based on the fact that it meets the criteria C and age of the New Jersey, local redevelopment and housing law. Speaker 9 00:34:46 Currently the sites presents an opportunity to be read the belts and a smart way, excuse me. And I think that moving forward with the process and pairing the redevelopment plan would increase the economic vitality of not only the study area, but for the township as well. And with that, I can take any questions that you may have, Speaker 1 00:35:09 Okay. Open to the board for any questions is Mr. Clarkson, Speaker 10 00:35:18 Madam chair. Can I just make a comment? Sure. I can carve with Mr. Clark and conclusions. And just want to point out that is the assessment of correctly is pretty accurate. In fact, that a lot of, a lot of times the DP mapping is misleading because if the board recalls, I believe they approved a, a warehouse on the adjoining property on enjoining lop one where the prod last year and the property did have some wetlands on it, but they were able to find a enough area to construct a warehouse with a associated barking. So I think Mr. Clark and assessment is pretty on Speaker 9 00:36:13 And Steve, Speaker 2 00:36:16 Any other comments from any other members of the board? All right. Madam chair, that the Councilwoman Cahill, I had one other couple of questions. So this, this area, this study on Mr. Clark. And is this the first time the board has seen enough Speaker 9 00:36:38 For assignments been asked to study this area? Speaker 2 00:36:41 No. Is it the first time we're seeing the plan that you showed and, and the report? Speaker 9 00:36:48 Yes. Speaker 2 00:36:51 Okay. All right. Meaning that it is not, was not included in our packet. It was emailed the email. Okay. Very good. No, no, no. Okay. Very good. Thank you. The other question I had was, if you could just clarify for maybe the L the layman, what seems to be two contradictory statement. One is that it's an area that is a needed redevelopment because without condemnation, because it is never been built on, et cetera. If, if the criteria is of the, and I think you mentioned age, but then you said it also too, would not be desirable for a private company to build on without public funding. Would you mind explaining that, that like the average Downy, like myself could better understand what that means? Speaker 9 00:38:01 No, of course. I'd be happy to explain so I can see what you're getting at. So what are the point I'm trying to make is that if a developer is looking at this property and doing his due diligence, it may come across the fact that he thinks that the entire area is wetlands. And usually when a developer sees that if it's large enough wetlands, it can cause development issues and either reduce the value or what can be accommodated on the site. And then that in turn, maybe the value of the site, but also just the fact that the wetlands are there. Usually it can be a pretty big deterrent because it just adds a lot of significant financial resources to particularly overcome. Especially if the wetland areas are large nuns, they will have to, let's say they fill them in. They would have to put wetlands elsewhere in the state and possibly double or even four times as large. Speaker 9 00:39:06 So I don't want to get too much into the DP regs, cause I'm not, I don't want it on them in front of me. And two, I'm not an expert on them, but it can be a really big deal for private development. And it just may not be financially worth it to go through all of that. So that's what I meant by just the simple facts of the DP mapping on me, finding wetlands on that site, that it's silly to turn to private capital without public assistance, which is what we're doing. We're studying the site. And if we move forward with the redevelopment plan, we will give private developers some incentive to actually develop it. Does is that, can I answer your question, Councilman kale? Speaker 2 00:39:47 Absolutely. Absolutely. Does. I definitely have a commentary, but not a question for you with regards to, to that last part, but you did answer my question. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 1 00:40:01 Any other questions from any of the board members concerns outside? Hello? Hey Steve. So from an environmental perspective, any, any reason to preserve the wetlands in the Piscataway, Speaker 9 00:40:26 If they are significant enough. So that's where the developer, if we let's say we move forward, let's say this board moves forward and mechanize the council to look at this for redevelopment. If we select a redeveloper, they will have to really get an expert out there to see what value those weapons are. So the DP regs, I think they have like three or four categories, wetlands ranging from very significant meaning. They are very high and environmental value to low. Usually when you're on the other, it's usually in as well also maybe wildlife habitats that might be there. So, and as I said before, I'm not an expert in this area. So that's why I think if we do move forward, the redeveloper is that it's, the onus is going to be on the redeveloper and it's to find out, can we even develop? And if we can, how do we preserve if we have to preserve? So let's say it's small enough that they may be able to fill them or pay TP some monies that they can put weapons elsewhere. But if it's big enough, then yes, they would have to preserve it, give a buffer, et cetera. There are different levels. Speaker 9 00:41:43 So, and sorry, I can't really answer a question cause I just, I don't know the value of those wetlands right now. Speaker 1 00:41:52 Mr. Clark. And I have a question. Do you know whether the other two lights adjacent to this particular area in need of development are being considered for developmental also, or is just that one LA Speaker 9 00:42:09 So for this study, it just focuses on that one lot block. Speaker 1 00:42:14 Do you think the municipality has wins or anybody else look at those other two lots, because it seems if we do that one, the other two lots may be amenable to read developmental, so Speaker 9 00:42:27 Right. I see what you're saying. I think Steve golly had mentioned that this one was actually before the board already. I I'm not sure. I think they got approval. Yes they did. Okay. Thanks one. I don't know. It's it's possible. It could be a domino effect of select. Speaker 1 00:42:50 That's what I'm kind of thinking, because I do recall when we had that application last year, when that other, when we developed and it was the parking lot was right next to that. Where, where that pink area. But we were able to, to get the application through, by some means, I forget how we did it, but it was be very able to approve the application though. I'm wondering if, but you said that was, that that part was, had been contained so that wouldn't, there's no spillage over into LA 3 0 1 Speaker 9 00:43:29 There, no seat. I mean, yeah, just going off of the deed he records. Yeah. You're right. Like very little, right? Yeah. So it's possible. But I mean, as you know, this one went before the board and was approved, but this may also be a challenge. You know what I mean? Depending on what is found, it got to be a challenge to develop. Speaker 1 00:44:04 Yeah. But since it seems to me that since the other one was, was approved, it may, it may be a benefit. I see a greater benefit than attempting to prove the next one. Any other, go ahead. Who's speaking. Speaker 11 00:44:32 Yeah. I think the mayors, Speaker 1 00:44:35 What happened? Did I lose my sound? Speaker 11 00:44:37 No. Burned up. Speaker 1 00:44:39 Okay. Let me, can you hear me all right. Speaker 11 00:44:48 Y Speaker 1 00:44:50 If the board doesn't have any additional, Speaker 11 00:44:53 Hold on one second, he's having difficulties. Why do you need help? Speaker 8 00:45:16 Oh, I was Reverend Kenny Yama yesterday. Question on item 12. What has happened while last year on south Washington avenue slowly at the very end, you know that we're talking about access to points maybe in years to come. What that area is to be a redeveloped . That was what we at the end of the south Washington today, as I recall, Speaker 1 00:45:42 I don't know, is this, I don't think this is on south Washington avenue. This is oh, Speaker 12 00:45:52 Right next to the data center. Speaker 8 00:45:54 Oh, okay. That's okay. I got through a lot that. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 12 00:46:00 Madam chair. If I may, the board, if the board decides to move forward to make this a redevelopment site, the onus is all ultimately going to be the applicant that's got, who has a hurdle with the DEP to come up with a plan and then we'd come back to if they pass mustard with the DDP would come back to the board anyway, but they don't pass my super DP. And it's going to be a moot point no matter what. Speaker 1 00:46:25 Right? Okay. Well, we've heard Mr. Clark Ann's report was the board's pleasure. You should show me pause the resolution. Madam chair. Yes. You should open it to the public. Okay. This issue is opened to the public for any comments or questions that they may have of Ms. Con Mr. Clark in considering concerning this area in need of redevelopment Specifically. Do you see any comment? Any response? Speaker 11 00:47:13 No, I do not. Madam chair. Speaker 1 00:47:15 Okay. All right. And hearing no response. It's close to the public. It's the portion. Does anyone want to propose the motion from the board? The resolution for resolution Speaker 8 00:47:36 In regards to 11 and 12, both lights are all free lights. Speaker 1 00:47:41 No, I believe just a lot to Mr. Clark. And is that correct? Speaker 8 00:47:59 Okay, Reverend Kenny, I make a motion that says we go for reading. Well, a lot to call me, known as circle drive north Speaker 1 00:48:12 Right here. Second. Thank you. Roco Speaker 0 00:48:20 Mayor. Wahler yeah. Councilman Cahn. Well, Speaker 8 00:48:30 You might be muted Speaker 0 00:48:35 Mr. Clark. And can you unshare your screen so I could see everybody walks me out. I apologize, Ms. Cahill. Speaker 1 00:48:55 I see her on mute. Speaker 0 00:48:57 Yeah. I'm asking her to on mute. I don't know if she sees it though. Okay. We'll come back. Ms. Corkery. Yeah. Ms. Saunders? Yeah. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa? Yes. Madam chair. Speaker 1 00:49:14 Yes. Speaker 0 00:49:17 Okay. And we lost Gabby. Okay. We have six Next number. Speaker 1 00:49:31 All right. Thank you, Mr. Clarkson. Thank you. Item number 14. Well, I'll say item number 13 has been postponed to September the 19th. That's Piscataway Centennial development developers. Speaker 0 00:49:46 And we still have number 12, Madam chair. Speaker 1 00:49:48 Oh, oh, okay. I wrote all over it. That's why I didn't see it. Okay. Item number 12. Discussion regarding south Washington avenue and access road. Correct. Speaker 9 00:50:06 I will also be presenting this to you tonight, as I'm already sworn in. I think I can jump right in. So once again, Chairman, Speaker 9 00:50:24 So this study is block 5 1 0 1 lot's 5.0 to 6.2 and 7.02. It's on south Washington avenue and Centennial avenue. So as mentioned previously, I was retained by the board after Skidaway township council asked the board to study this area for in need of redevelopment and non condemnation area need of redevelopment. And this is my report before you, and we'll go through the findings. So this one's a little bit longer as it's three lots, but so please stop me if you have any questions. And as you all know, to qualify as an area in need of redevelopment, we need to meet one of those eight criteria found in the local redevelopment and housewarming. Speaker 9 00:51:15 So March 11th, and then also with the follow-up visit on June 30th of this year, I did an onsite inspection to photographs. And then I compare that with your township records, excuse me, aerials, your master plan, your zoning, warning, police records, anything I can find regarding those properties. So let's jump right into the description of the study area. So I can't, I'm gonna skip to the Ariel as it's a lot easier to just fry. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So we have block 5 1 0 1 lot 5.2 lot 6.02 and one 7.02. These are the three areas that we're asked to be studied. As I mentioned, this is south Washington avenue and their Centennial Centennial avenue. So these three contiguous properties represents about 21.4 acres of lands and is coming in that Northwest corner of this intersection and also bound by access road. So that's the general area I'm going to kind of delve into each individual a lot. So I'm gonna start with lot 5.02, as you can see, it has dual functioned frontage on access road. And then you can also see, as you regularly shaped lie, it has like this weird pinch point and then kind of bins off and has frontage on Centennial avenue. So as you can see, it's mainly open space. There is this gravel portion here that seems to be either a lot of player, Speaker 12 00:53:00 Mr. Carton per second for the boards referenced. This is the Avis rental site. Speaker 9 00:53:05 Okay. Yes. Thank you, mayor. I'll definitely get to that for reference. Avis is here on lot of 6.02, but for 5.2, like I said, it's really just open space. This gravel area seems to be kind of utilized by these businesses. You do have a stretch of forest and trees and dense vegetation right here. And then it kinda also wraps around the border here. I'm gonna show you some photographs where you can get a better look at that, but for all intents and purposes for our presentation tonight, this is vacant unimproved lands. And after reviewing past aerials and your township records, I believe it's been that way for well over 10 years. And as the mayor was saying lot 6.02 is the Avis budget rental car service. And actually there are two businesses on this property. The second building here, it's actually C LLC, you know, and it's sorry, I'm going to have to scroll up. Speaker 9 00:54:11 I've already forgot what they're called. Apologies contract leasing corporation. So they really didn't engage in the leasing of trailers. I'm just going to call them CLC for short from now on. And you can kind of see the big kind of split the property and their operations. You know, you have your car rental parking here. People go into the offices here looking rental rent cars. And then the trailer storage is really the Southern portion of the lot. And it's kind of haphazard and I'm really, you know, store at a lot of trailers on the site. The two buildings are two brick buildings, both two stories. The first has the rental car offices. There is a repair facility, I think it's three or four garages and that's really it for this one. It also has offices in this little corner right here, and then the remainder are trailer base for repair and maintenance as well. There's also one over here and also there was an addict for storage. So besides the two businesses and the two small buildings, it's really just one giant parking lot slash storage area. So it's hard to see, but the pavement kind of extends until about here. And then it kind of turns into just gravel for the rest of the way. Speaker 9 00:55:41 And then finally we have lot 7.02. I'm going to sort of describe this as a corner through lot the corner being right here at access road and south Washington avenue, but then it kind of weirdly sneaks around or behind these properties to also have frontage on Centennial avenue. Just a little bit right there, as you can see, it is also vegan unimproved land. It's really just tall grass was in forest and trees and maybe even potential wetlands of which I will get into later. So, oh, right. Sorry. So I should mention that 5.2 is 7.91 acres 6.02 is 9.36 acres. And this one is 4.1 acres for a total of just over 21 acres in size. So that's a distribution of the three lots jumping into the environmental analysis second and bring up the exhibit. Yeah, that's that's my computer. Give me a second. Okay. Hopefully it comes back. Okay. Speaker 9 00:57:23 Sorry. I'm just going to have to close it. And then the real benefit I think. So I'll try and describe as we're waiting for this. So during the environmental analysis research, really just two things came up wetlands and underground storage tanks. So we'll talk about the underground storage tanks first. It's really not a big deal. So the rental car facility obviously has to put gas in its vehicles. So it has a fueling station in the middle of the property. When I looked at DP records, there were no issues or any thing out of order, they were all permitted and allowed. So that was one thing. And then the wetlands. So I'm really hoping to get this exhibit. Let's try this again. Okay. So let me share my screen again. I apologize. Speaker 9 00:58:45 Okay. Can everyone see my screen now? Yeah. Alright. Sorry about that. Okay. So here is according to DP records that you've sent of the wetlands. So once again, I walked this site and I did not see wetlands in this area. There was a dry stream bed kind of running through this vegetation. I'm not sure it's just the hydrology over time. It's changed in the area, but, and actually on my second visit is a very heavy rain event right before I got there. So I was actually surprised not to see any water there, but nonetheless, I couldn't actually get to all the vegetation to, to see any standing water, but I did not see any also it says that there are in here. I could not, there was a fence here it's like really thin get in there too far to see. So that's something we may have to look at, but right here. Speaker 9 00:59:46 So this has it going all the way through. There are no wetlands on the driveway, but there is standing water in these areas. And then finally, I wasn't able to get all the way through, but I did find some demarcation flags in this area as well. So once again, there seems to be potential for wetlands in the study area, possibly all three lots. But once again, we probably need someone properly licensed and an expert in that field to confirm the extent of those wetlands surrounding land uses. You have two residential homes here, as you may know, a warehouse development was recently developed here. And if you go further west, you'll eventually hit corporate place where there are also other warehouses and light industrial uses across the way in Centennial avenue. You have a small office building, you have interstate 2 87 X six right here on the other side or more light industrial retail and other commercial uses. And then to the east, you have Scotto shopping center with also retail and big box stores. Speaker 9 01:01:04 This study area, all three lots are also in your light industrial classification. And as you know, it permits a wide variety of light industrial uses. That's just like manufacturing, warehousing data centers, et cetera, for the master plan perspective. Once again, your master plan does not specifically call out this area for being needed to be studied for area in need of redevelopment. But once again, the fact that your master plan mentions that redevelopment activity will become important for older sections of the township. I think qualifies for this area being studied today, as it's, I think it's been this way for a long time in the overall development has come to it. Speaker 9 01:01:58 And then once again, for the state planning area classification, you are still getting area one and metropolitan planning area, and Piscataway is still a smart growth area. So redevelopment here meets the intent and is consistent with the state's plan. So now I'm going to go through some of the photographs that I took have each lot. So we're gonna start with like 5.02, which was the one furthest it's the last on the area. And that was open space. And as you can see in the first photo, it's pretty wide open. This is looking north towards 27 and access roads, just grass area, excuse me. And then this is looking south and you can kind of get an idea of that vegetation and tree area that I was talking about. It kind of splits the property almost half, and this is a closer look to it. And as I said, there was a heavy rain event right before I got there. But, you know, I tried getting in there to see if I could find standing water, but it's just was too dense to really know for sure. And then there's that dries stream bed that I mentioned before, but it's very possible that wetlands existed before, but maybe not as much as DP thought when they first went out there. And then finally, yeah, so that's a lot 5.2 and then towards the bottom. So if you look at the tax map, there are, you're actually one of my show you the text map before. Speaker 9 01:03:49 So this is like 5.02 right here. You can see that pinch point I mentioned earlier and it kind of opens up. So can you just scroll over? So you have a varied with drainage easement, and then that last photo you could kind of see the ditch or basin that is there that I think allows drainage to go to, but then you also have this slope here that covers the access to Centennial avenue. I think that just maybe a possible continuation of the training as the water wants to get in, it goes in the north south direction. As you know, when you're driving down south Washington avenue, it's a pretty big hill. So the topography is very similar. Speaker 9 01:04:39 I also did a review of police and township records. There was no heads for lot 5.2, except one incident in 2007 of illegal dumping of wood chips on the property. That was really it. Only thing I can really say is that if this continues to be big in unimproved land, that it could be subject to more illegal topping in the future, but it really only was born issue. So now we're going to go to lot 6.2, which is the middle lot. So the first picture is they this building, and then you can kind of see the extent of how many cars are parked on the area. And also the condition of the pavement. Overall, the condition of the pan was really dilapidated and could show a lack of means like the striping was stated and it looks like it hadn't really been taken care of. Speaker 9 01:05:39 And as you go further along, especially once you get to the gravel area, you'll come across seats, big potholes, which get even worse. And you can see the water in the potholes, double photos of the buildings. It's really just their maintenance facility, the attic and their offices. They seem to be in decent shape, nothing really there to report on there. You can see they're servicing those trailers. And then these are the ones that I wanted to get to. So right after that heavy rain event, you could really see the poor conditions of the pavement and overall dilapidation of the paved area and gravel area that combines with the, you know, hazard parking for rental cars and trailers really is obsolete. There's definitely a more modern and safer approach to storing rental cars and trailers where it shouldn't be so haphazard and taking up so much excessive space. Speaker 9 01:06:53 And then finally are some of the potential wetlands on line 6.02, and you can kind of see the standing water there. So also police records were looked at for lot 6.0 and they were actually quite extensive. So appendix C of my report actually has a full list of all the police records, but between 2010 and 2020, there are 36 incidents of stolen vehicles or trailers on the property. The majority of those events incidents involve stolen vehicles from the rental car business, but a couple also involve stolen trailers. Other police reports on the property included to sort of a conduct verbally forgery dumping, possession of drugs and fraudulent business checks. Speaker 9 01:07:46 So really I think the lack of security on the property unfortunately makes it somewhat of an attraction to crime. You know, there's no fencing, no security cameras, no lighting. There's nothing really out there, especially once the business closes for the day, but really this just the lack of formal, modern storage of vehicles and trailers without that security or lighting, it really makes a dangerous obsolete and detrimental to the public wife welfare, in my opinion. So together, I think these conditions confirm obsolescence, excessive land coverage, and dilapidation of lot 6.02. And then this last lot, once again, I checked your records. There's no indication of anything ever being developed as you can see, it's really just grasslands and forests. Although I do want to know this really high grade change and wall here. So that's where access road kind of comes out and meets south Washington. And you can see the signalized intersection there as want to note that because I'm going to come back to it in a second. Speaker 9 01:09:02 Yeah, there was some debris on the Lai, really not much, but once again, you see these pink flags, which may be an indicator of potential wetlands on the site. And as I showed before that exhibit, the DP records showed a large portion of the lots being covered by wetlands, but we wouldn't even professional to be sure of the extent, but overall, I think it's clear that this is beacon unimproved property and has been so for 10 years now for I jumped into application of the criteria, I'm going to go over improvement value to land value ratio. So if you can see my screen on this is section 5.1 of my report. So this is really a tool that kind of looks at economic productivity of properties in the study area. I do this by analyzing the tax assessment data that I get from your tax office. And it's summarized in this table with the blue heading right here. So we have lot of 5.2 6 22, 7 22. So you have land value. And then the improvement value, which is really the value of the structure is our infrastructure on it. Speaker 9 01:10:19 So as there's no building or development on lots, 5.02 and 7.02, their ratio is effectively zero. So it's obviously very clear that they're being underlined under utilized. However, the improvement to the land value of ratio of lot 6.02 is only 0.17 to one. So you can really see the difference of improving value to the land value. So that means the land is many times more valuable than the actual improvements upon it. And a low ratio of 0.17 to one really shows that the property is being underutilized significant. And then just so we're not looking at that in a bubble, I looked at three other adjacent properties. Speaker 9 01:11:12 So lots to is the further west of the study area. So it's actually the one at corporate place and Centennial avenue. I chose this one because the lot right next to the study area is the POC and usability, which wouldn't be a good comparison, but that's the first one. The second one is the brand new warehouse development on access for right next to the study area. Excuse me. And the third is the office building across the street on the other set of Centennial. What's really key here is really just look at those improvement values. We have 5 million, 19,001, and even the land is much more significantly higher in value at 4 million, 8 million and just under a million. And then you look at their ratios. It's 1.2 to one, 2.3 to one and 1.5 to one. So really anything, one to one or over one-to-one usually means it's being properly utilized economically. Speaker 9 01:12:14 So I think it's pretty clear that surrounding area is being utilized very well and is actually probably thriving, but the study area is quite behind and is underutilized in my opinion, right? So like if you were to take the combined values and study area, you get about half a million dollars and it doesn't even come close to any of those individual surrounding it. So I think all of this financial data sharply points out that the study area is economically under utilized they're utilized. Okay. Now just the key part of the application of the criteria. So I'm starting with 5.02, which is that lot furthest to the west that is mostly open space. So as I said before, it seemed that D D records show that there were potential wetlands. And then as I said, I did not really seem to find any evidence of that. Speaker 9 01:13:21 However, if there are wetlands in the area, it would be a deterrent to private capital. As I mentioned in my previous testimony for the last study. So that's one deterrent, but also I think another is the fact that you have that training Jasmine and the slow Beeson on the Centennial avenue side. And so that may create difficulties for access. So it limits access to the lot. And I believe that that is a deterrent to private capital as well, and to develop it because the Southern portion of the law just may not be accessible or be able to be utilized because of potential wetlands in the area. So that if a private developer is looking at it, he may just be deterred by the national features of the site. Speaker 9 01:14:21 And so do that circumstance. I believe that private capital may be here to individually develop the property by itself and physical evidence of long-term vacancy combined with the national feature sounds at lot of 5.0 student needs to see criteria. And in my professional opinion, I conclude that it needs to see criteria in the long-term vacancy and stagnation. That's detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Now also for a lot of 5.02, I applied section three of the local redevelopment and housing law. So I'm just going to scroll students so that you can see it. Some of you may forget that this is part of the law. Usually we focus on the age criteria or just age or age, but within the redevelopment statute states a redevelopment area may include lands buildings or improvements, which themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary with, or without changing their condition for the effect redevelopment of the area of which they are. Speaker 9 01:15:32 And so I find that section three applies to a lot of 5.02 it's necessary for the redevelopment of the whole area as we'll provide additional land area to make the project more developable, but also connects to lot 6.2 and 7.02, which will give more access options to Centennial avenue, making the property or economically viable. And I think this will be key because we're close to that major signalized intersection of Centennial avenue and south Washington avenue. So we all know it gets very busy and if we're going to move forward with redeveloping, the site, we're going to want to have as many access options as possible. Speaker 9 01:16:17 So moving on to block 5 1 0 1 lot 6.02, I found that the D criteria applies to this slot and I'm going to read it now. Areas with buildings are improvements, which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement, or design, lack of ventilation, light, and Santos facilities, excessively and coverage, deleterious land use, or absolute layout or any combination of these are other factors that are detrimental to the safety health. So as I pointed out before the dilapidation and lack of Nina's part by is very clear from the photos and my site, is it the obsolescence of just haphazard parking of stuffing of trailers onto a large property area, faulty arrangement, or a lack of, to even store these trailers and cars and just the excessive land coverage overall to accommodate this excessive storage area. I feel that the lack of the parking lot creates an high store. Speaker 9 01:17:23 And also those poles can really start to damage vehicles or trailers when they're entering the property and increased risk to personal injury for those who traverse a lot. So I feel that this is evidence of dilapidation that supports the D criteria, right? I already talked about the trailers and then back to the number of police records that we found a lot six point stupid in the extensive, in the high amount of crime that we found at that long past 10 years. I think just the way that the property is set up without security lighting really just doesn't deter crime. And unfortunately crime has come to a lie and it's just kind of created this negative social behavior. And I believe it constitutes deleterious land use and is detrimental to the welfare of the community. I think redevelopment would potentially turn that around. Speaker 9 01:18:27 And so overall, the physical undocumented evidence confirmed the presence of conditions that exhibit obsolescence, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use faulty arrangement and dilapidation site. These conditions and factors are detrimental to safety, health morals of welfare community, in my opinion. Okay. Finally to lot 7.02. So once again, the DUP records show extensive extensive wetlands on the property. And I also found some evidence of wetlands as well, and I feel that this is deterrent to private capital for similar reasons. I mentioned before you have to pay the permitting professionals and significant financial resources just to develop the property. And I think that that fact plus the amount of time that it's been begun has just deterred private capital, so that needs, or the soil and the natural natural feature is one to turn. But also I pointed out in that photo, the, the hybrid wall showing the excessive grade change. Speaker 9 01:19:39 So I just, the reason I pointed that out is for the point of access. So if one was to develop that on its own, I think accessing the property would be very difficult. It would be very difficult to get that road to connect to access road at that high grade, especially because there is not a lot of frontage on the lot to allow for a road to connect and not, I guess, sort of screw up the configuration of the signalized intersection there. And then also if you were to put a direct access onto south Washington avenue, I think that would cause a lot of problems too, because as you know, there are three signalized intersections between 2 87 and the Centennial avenue. Speaker 9 01:20:31 So creating an access point on its own would not be cause a lot of safety and traffic issues. So I think that would be major to turn to private capital as well. So overall I think the natural features of the grade and the wet nature of the soil combined are a big enough to turn to private capital and make it unlikely that they would intervene without public assistance to redevelop it. And therefore, I think that meets the C criteria. I also applied section three to lot 7.02 for similar reasons in that it will provide additional land area to provide a more developable project within the study area, the added lands area we'll connect spots, excuse me, 5.2 and 6.02. And this will give us more access options, especially around this major signalized intersection, excuse me, a student move forward. And finally, for all three lots, I applied the age criteria as the citizen, the planning area, one of the state plan and scatter, we as army marked as a smart growth area, but also with the proximity of 27, literally being right there and the surrounding infrastructure that's already in place, I think it meets the smart growth objectives that state plan and therefore each criteria applies to lots 5.6 to 6.27 points. Speaker 9 01:22:04 Okay. So to wrap it all up, I recommend that the township planning board and the township council determined that the study area is a non condemnation area. You need of redevelopment based on the fact that it needs the criteria of the New Jersey, local redevelopment and housing law. And to quickly review, I found that block 5 1 0 1, 5 0.2 needs the C H and section three criteria of the law block five one-on-one lesson, six pointed to needs the D and he's criteria of the law and block 5 1 0 1 but 7.02 C agent section three criteria of the law. I think it's a great opportunity for redevelopment to take advantage of the surrounding infrastructure to develop in a smart way. It means your township master planning goals and the criteria set forth in the green development law. With that. I won't see any questions. Yes, Yes. Can you hear me? Speaker 8 01:23:18 But yes, I can hear you in regards to 5 0 2, 6 0 2 and 700 to put those street light speed combined for redevelopment together. Speaker 9 01:23:29 Yes they did. And that's actually making with the section three application, the criteria is that I think it's an interest of the project to do so. Speaker 8 01:23:40 Right. And I think it may interest a developer when the three lots come together because it would be accessible and large enough for the developer. Yeah. What I was looking at. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1 01:24:01 Any other questions from the board? Should we open it up to the public Yet? Something, Speaker 10 01:24:12 Yes, just a similar comment to the circle drive mini development plan. And again, I concur with Mr. Clark and regarding the, the whole wetland and environmental issue. And I also agree that, you know, being that the three parcels are under separate ownership inclusion of all three and the redevelopment area could eventually incentivize a developer to, to purchase all three properties. Speaker 1 01:24:52 Yeah. I agree. Any other comments from the other members of the board? Well, let's open it up to the public. I'd like to open it up to the public, too many, make any questions or comments on the testimony of Mr. Clarkin with reference to these three blocks, with the need to three lots and, and need redevelopment. Speaker 10 01:25:22 You might want to take down your screen, Jimmy . Speaker 9 01:25:24 Yeah. Thank you, Steve. Here we go. Speaker 1 01:25:33 Somebody raised, yes, Speaker 3 01:25:37 I can Simmons. Speaker 1 01:25:40 Oh, that hear you now. Was there any response from the public? Yes. There's Speaker 3 01:25:45 A Ken Simmons. Don't Speaker 1 01:25:46 Like to speak, okay. As this, this, since to say his, give his name and address Speaker 9 01:25:55 Jensen. Speaker 14 01:25:55 It was one 13 Willow avenue Piscataway also with tapping and Piscataway. Just to my question about the three lots, you said that they're under separate ownership or any of them owned by the township, or they will be purchased by the developer. The township of a broker deal with the developers would buy the individual last, or even if they are combined as a package, how would that play out of their own, the separate ownership? Speaker 9 01:26:25 So the township does not own any of those lots, including where to move forward with this process. It developer may come forward to purchase all three lots. Typically it's one redeveloper, but it can be multiple. And so if that does come to pass, then we would move to the redevelopment plan stage. And then that's when the township would work with that developer to figure out what to put on the property. So, so to sort of answer your question, a developer would have to come forward and likely have some sort of real estate options on all three discussions with the township. Okay. Speaker 14 01:27:12 But currently you could say that putting this, or sort of like, I guess as a reclassification makes it available for sale. If, if a developer decides they want to put an offer is not necessarily being marketed for sale at this time, we're at a projected date. Speaker 9 01:27:31 I see what you're saying to my knowledge, they are not for sale currently. Sorry, what was the first part of your question again? Speaker 14 01:27:43 I was trying to understand if the, if the township is targeting these properties as a, as a sale item to see if there's some, some word that the current owners may have said, we would be open to an offer if somebody should come forward. That was Speaker 9 01:28:00 So it's not really an offer per se. So if the, if this board and the council designates an area in need of redevelopment, it opens up sort of like a toolbox of different options that the township and that developer can come into agreement on basically to incentivize that developer to redevelop it. So the whole point of designating an area in need of redevelopment is to, is for the public body in this case, the council to incentivize development, because it hasn't occurred on its own. So it's not really an offer per se. It's, it's more like opening more pathways to development. Speaker 14 01:28:47 Okay. Thank you. Speaker 9 01:28:48 Yup. Speaker 14 01:28:52 Any other questions from any other member of the public now? Hands Madam. Okay. Speaker 1 01:29:01 Thank you. Seeing no response. It's close to the public. All right. The board has the option of making a comment or making a motion. Speaker 8 01:29:18 Madam chair, first of all, to, to address to Mr. bank and for the thorough search and these properties for redevelopments, he's done an excellent job in going through these properties because they're in the back end of that, the property was passed to the Davis a lot. It's pretty dense back there. I've been back there several times, rented some vehicles out of there, and it is dense property, but it can be developed. And there is some wetlands back there in that Northwest corner. But I think it very much with a federal job that he does in the pictures and everything that he said, but this area does need, there's a need for any property that make it needs to be reasonable. And he does a thorough job. I think a very much, Speaker 1 01:30:14 I think you're ever getting, we agreed. We agree. The board agrees. Is there a motion? Speaker 8 01:30:30 Therefore, Reverend Kenny, again, Madam chair. I make a motion that we, these properties on item 12, five old 51 0 1 lights, 5 0 2, 6 0 2 and 7.0. To be in for, in process for redevelopment. Speaker 1 01:30:56 Yeah, I hear it. Second Beckett ponder. Got it. Speaker 0 01:31:05 Mayor. Wahler Councilwoman Cahill. We, I think we lost her. Ms. Corcoran. You said? Yes. Ms. Saunders, Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair. Speaker 1 01:31:29 Yes. We had six approved Madam chair and Councilwoman Cahill. I was, I, I had to hit the button. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Gibson, the motion carries. Okay. I think were an item number 14. Yes. Ma'am need a motion to pay the bills. Speaker 8 01:31:56 So moved Madam chair, Reverend gang. Speaker 1 01:31:59 Second. Don't move. Carol Tonder Speaker 0 01:32:04 Mayor Wahler. Yeah. Councilwoman Cahill. Speaker 1 01:32:10 Yeah. Speaker 0 01:32:11 Ms. Corcoran. Ms. Saunders. Yeah. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And that chair? Speaker 1 01:32:26 Yes. I'm hearing no other having no other business on the agenda. Take a motion to adjourn this meeting until September the ninth of 2010. Thank you. Roll call Speaker 0 01:32:47 Mayor. Wahler. Yeah. Councilwoman Cahill. Yeah. Ms. Corcoran. Yeah. Ms. Saunders. Yeah. Reverend Kenny, Mr. Espinosa and Madam chair. Speaker 1 01:33:07 Yes. Everyone. See you next month. Stay safe. Yeah. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Speaker 0 01:33:34 Oh,